JCP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Web-only Table
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, T M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, T M
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Down Syndrome
*Genetic Testing
*High Risk Pregnancy
*Prenatal Testing
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Ethics
Right arrow Genetics
Right arrow Screening
Right arrow Perinatal
Journal of Clinical Pathology 2003;56:268-270
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group & Association of Clinical Pathologists


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Down’s syndrome screening is unethical: views of today’s research ethics committees

T M Reynolds

Correspondence to:
Professor T Reynolds, Clinical Chemistry Department, Queen’s Hospital, Belvedere Road, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire DE13 0RB, UK;
Tim.Reynolds{at}Queens.Burtonh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk Background: Screening for Down’s syndrome forms part of routine obstetric practice. Ethical considerations relating to genetic screening form a major part of the workload of research ethics committees. This study investigated the attitudes of research ethics committee members to several conditions varying in clinical severity and prognosis, including Down’s syndrome.

Methods: The members of 40 randomly chosen research ethics committees were surveyed. A simple questionnaire comprising 19 clinical scenarios based around four "clinical" conditions was designed to review conditions that were potentially embarrassing, affecting life span but not mental ability, premature death, and intellectual impairment with a risk of neonatal cardiac defects (Down’s syndrome). Screening tests with different degrees of effectiveness were described and the diagnostic test descriptions ranged from having no risk to an unaffected fetus to causing spontaneous abortion of two normal fetuses for each affected fetus identified. Replies were graded on a scale of 1 to 5.

Results: Seventy seven replies were received from 28 different research ethics committees. Screening was supported for treatment of a life threatening condition (95% in favour) but screening for conditions of a slight increase in premature death (14% in favour) or cosmetic features (10% in favour) were considered unethical. Views were ambiguous (49% in favour) about conditions involving significant shortening of lifespan. Down’s syndrome screening was considered more ethical when described as a serious condition (56% in favour) than when the clinical features were described (44% in favour). Once increased rates of spontaneous abortion on confirmatory testing were added, 79% (21% in favour) and 86% (14% in favour) stated that screening was unethical (for "serious" and "clinical features" descriptions, respectively).

Conclusions: Down’s syndrome screening raises ethical concerns about genetic testing in general that need to be dealt with before the introduction of any prenatal screening test.


Keywords: Down’s syndrome; ethics; trisomy 21




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur J Public HealthHome page
A. H. Bittles, C. Bower, R. Hussain, and E. J. Glasson
The four ages of Down syndrome
Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2007; 17(2): 221 - 225.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
H. I.J. Wildschut, T.J. Peters, and C. P. Weiner
Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 499 - 512.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Med. EthicsHome page
The public must decide whether genetic screening is ethical
J. Med. Ethics, February 1, 2004; 30(1): 62 - 62.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Journal of Clinical Pathology Molecular Pathology
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2003 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Association of Clinical Pathologists.